IN YOUR OPINION

Letters to the Editor for Jan. 17, 2013

Published: Thursday, January 17, 2013 at 6:30 a.m.

Last Modified: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 at 8:42 p.m.

Punishing the innocent

Dan Thomasson’s recent judgmental and unbalanced column casts continuing shame on Penn State University and the governor of Pennsylvania. His opinion is that football should have been canceled completely for years, but given that the team is being allowed to play, the head coaching position should be funded at a sub-par salary. The governor is taken to task for suing the NCAA over the $60 million fine that was imposed.

As awful as the crimes committed by Jerry Sandusky were, and as wrong as the officials who chose to overlook them were, punishment needs to be limited to those who were involved. There is no reason to punish innocent scholar-athletes, nor the tens of thousands of students who are proud of their university and its team, nor the millions of loyal fans.

A coach who picked up the pieces of the broken program deserves pay that is commensurate with that of his peers.

Unlike Thomasson, fair-minded individuals should be able to understand Gov. Corbett’s lawsuit against the NCAA. In this case, the NCAA is punishing every taxpayer in Pennsylvania. Tax dollars make up a big proportion of the revenues that run the university, and the NCAA has imposed a huge fine with the intention of using the revenues to finance programs in the other 49 states. Beyond impacting the athletes, the students and the fan base, this fine redistributes money from residents of one state to the coffers of all the other states. The governor is not shaming himself, but rather is defending the Commonwealth’s citizens from having their money stolen.

Everyone in his or her right mind empathizes with the victims in this matter. Anyone even tangentially guilty of allowing these actions to take place needs to be punished. It does not serve the victims to impose penalties on innocent people and to confiscate money from taxpayers.

Ted Apple

Dunnellon

Bikers share blame

I just finished reading the article concerning bikers (“Supersport bikers face high fatality rate,” Jan. 13), and I must disagree with the headline. I believe the greatest danger to bikers is the bikers, themselves.

I spent almost 15 years as a long-haul driver. Then, in the years since, I have driven up and down the East Coast time and time again. Now, I have retired to Florida, and I see the same thing on the roads that I saw while long-hauling and traveling: Bikers don’t obey the laws of the road.

As my best calculation, I would say that out of the literally hundreds, maybe even thousands of bikers I have seen, seven out of 10 consistently ride unsafely. Start watching bikers carefully, and you’ll start seeing the same things:

— Weaving in and out of traffic, usually at high speed, leaving little room for motorists to react if something goes wrong.

n Weaving between cars — sometimes using their feet to push out against vehicles in order to prevent falling over — when traffic is stalled.

n Riding side by side, even though the proper thing is to ride single-file.

n Operating at high speeds, often higher than the speed limit.

I’m sorry, but even though motorists are indeed a danger to bikers, I think they need to start obeying the laws like the rest of us before they start crying about how dangerous it is to ride.

John Grant

Summerfield

Pass the snake oil

I have come to the conclusion that the worst enemy the United States has is its politicians, who are supposed to help run this great nation.

Time after time, we see these dog and pony shows going on in Washington, but it all boils down to who is the best snake oil salesman.

As a retiree, I now have to pay nearly $600 more yearly. My retirement isn’t all that much. I have cut out any extras. My food bill has doubled and gas prevents me from any extra traveling.

We get what we voted for. I hope everyone enjoys the snake oil as they try to swallow it.

Nancy Simpkins

Ocala

Automatics already banned

In the letter, “Oxymoronic solution” (Jan. 15), the writer states, “... a blackout on the sale of automatic weapons might very well prevent ....” In the following letter the same day, the writer of “Blame and credit” writes, “Automatic weapons designed to kill en mass ....”

I would like to point out to these two gentlemen that automatic weapons were banned by the National Firearms Act of 1934.

Jeff McGlaughlin

Ocala

Innocence lost

I have been reading with interest the current gun control debate. I find that both sides are using somewhat fanciful ideas on how to solve the problem.

The gun control side wants to either ban guns and/or assault weapons. While I personally cannot understand why a private citizen needs an assault weapon, I also understand that banning them will not stop crime. The bad guys can always get the gun.

The pro-gun side wants to turn schools into a fortress and use armed guards for protection. They then use the rather dubious logic of comparing that with marshals in planes to combat hijackers. There is a big difference between a guard in a small, confined space in a plane and a large school building/campus.

But, there is an issue with this plan that I do not feel has been thought out. Are we not actually doing additional harm to those children we are trying to protect by depriving them of a cherished commodity, if you will, that we all enjoyed when we were young. That commodity is innocence.

There was a time when school, maybe with the exception of report card day, was a sanctuary, a time to learn and be exposed to new worlds out there. For older students, a time for football games or first love.

Now, every day the students will have to pass a outer perimeter, doors resembling a bank vault, metal detectors and armed guards. Every day the children will be reminded of the violence around them.

I understand the need to protect, but is this the best we can do? We also need to protect the psychological side, too. Maybe we need to give this idea some additional thought.

<p><b>Punishing the innocent</b></p><p>Dan Thomasson's recent judgmental and unbalanced column casts continuing shame on Penn State University and the governor of Pennsylvania. His opinion is that football should have been canceled completely for years, but given that the team is being allowed to play, the head coaching position should be funded at a sub-par salary. The governor is taken to task for suing the NCAA over the $60 million fine that was imposed.</p><p>As awful as the crimes committed by Jerry Sandusky were, and as wrong as the officials who chose to overlook them were, punishment needs to be limited to those who were involved. There is no reason to punish innocent scholar-athletes, nor the tens of thousands of students who are proud of their university and its team, nor the millions of loyal fans.</p><p>A coach who picked up the pieces of the broken program deserves pay that is commensurate with that of his peers.</p><p>Unlike Thomasson, fair-minded individuals should be able to understand Gov. Corbett's lawsuit against the NCAA. In this case, the NCAA is punishing every taxpayer in Pennsylvania. Tax dollars make up a big proportion of the revenues that run the university, and the NCAA has imposed a huge fine with the intention of using the revenues to finance programs in the other 49 states. Beyond impacting the athletes, the students and the fan base, this fine redistributes money from residents of one state to the coffers of all the other states. The governor is not shaming himself, but rather is defending the Commonwealth's citizens from having their money stolen.</p><p>Everyone in his or her right mind empathizes with the victims in this matter. Anyone even tangentially guilty of allowing these actions to take place needs to be punished. It does not serve the victims to impose penalties on innocent people and to confiscate money from taxpayers.</p><p><i>Ted Apple</p><p>Dunnellon</i></p><p> </p><p><b>Bikers share blame</b></p><p>I just finished reading the article concerning bikers (“Supersport bikers face high fatality rate,” Jan. 13), and I must disagree with the headline. I believe the greatest danger to bikers is the bikers, themselves.</p><p>I spent almost 15 years as a long-haul driver. Then, in the years since, I have driven up and down the East Coast time and time again. Now, I have retired to Florida, and I see the same thing on the roads that I saw while long-hauling and traveling: Bikers don't obey the laws of the road.</p><p>As my best calculation, I would say that out of the literally hundreds, maybe even thousands of bikers I have seen, seven out of 10 consistently ride unsafely. Start watching bikers carefully, and you'll start seeing the same things:</p><p>— Weaving in and out of traffic, usually at high speed, leaving little room for motorists to react if something goes wrong.</p><p>n Weaving between cars — sometimes using their feet to push out against vehicles in order to prevent falling over — when traffic is stalled.</p><p>n Riding side by side, even though the proper thing is to ride single-file.</p><p>n Operating at high speeds, often higher than the speed limit.</p><p>I'm sorry, but even though motorists are indeed a danger to bikers, I think they need to start obeying the laws like the rest of us before they start crying about how dangerous it is to ride.</p><p><i>John Grant</p><p>Summerfield</i></p><p> </p><p><b>Pass the snake oil</b></p><p>I have come to the conclusion that the worst enemy the United States has is its politicians, who are supposed to help run this great nation.</p><p>Time after time, we see these dog and pony shows going on in Washington, but it all boils down to who is the best snake oil salesman.</p><p>This big fight over payroll taxes? Well, guess what, folks? Your check just got hit with a pretty good-sized deduction.</p><p>As a retiree, I now have to pay nearly $600 more yearly. My retirement isn't all that much. I have cut out any extras. My food bill has doubled and gas prevents me from any extra traveling.</p><p>We get what we voted for. I hope everyone enjoys the snake oil as they try to swallow it.</p><p><i>Nancy Simpkins</p><p>Ocala</i></p><p> </p><p><b>Automatics already banned</b></p><p>In the letter, “Oxymoronic solution” (Jan. 15), the writer states, “... a blackout on the sale of automatic weapons might very well prevent ....” In the following letter the same day, the writer of “Blame and credit” writes, “Automatic weapons designed to kill en mass ....”</p><p>I would like to point out to these two gentlemen that automatic weapons were banned by the National Firearms Act of 1934.</p><p><i>Jeff McGlaughlin</p><p>Ocala</i></p><p> </p><p><b>Innocence lost</b></p><p>I have been reading with interest the current gun control debate. I find that both sides are using somewhat fanciful ideas on how to solve the problem.</p><p>The gun control side wants to either ban guns and/or assault weapons. While I personally cannot understand why a private citizen needs an assault weapon, I also understand that banning them will not stop crime. The bad guys can always get the gun.</p><p>The pro-gun side wants to turn schools into a fortress and use armed guards for protection. They then use the rather dubious logic of comparing that with marshals in planes to combat hijackers. There is a big difference between a guard in a small, confined space in a plane and a large school building/campus.</p><p>But, there is an issue with this plan that I do not feel has been thought out. Are we not actually doing additional harm to those children we are trying to protect by depriving them of a cherished commodity, if you will, that we all enjoyed when we were young. That commodity is innocence.</p><p>There was a time when school, maybe with the exception of report card day, was a sanctuary, a time to learn and be exposed to new worlds out there. For older students, a time for football games or first love.</p><p>Now, every day the students will have to pass a outer perimeter, doors resembling a bank vault, metal detectors and armed guards. Every day the children will be reminded of the violence around them.</p><p>I understand the need to protect, but is this the best we can do? We also need to protect the psychological side, too. Maybe we need to give this idea some additional thought.</p><p><i>John Hakkio</p><p>Ocala</i></p>